pothos.org

I'm just curious what everyone thinks. Sorry if these polls (or this question) is annoying.

I voted the first, but i dont deny that it may have been more intimate at a point. We just dont have facts. And some things can easily be misunderstood.

I agree with you 100% Efstathios, we just don't have the facts to prove, or disprove, anything. And I also don't deny that they could have had relations at some time during their lives, and, perhaps, continuing until the end. I find it striking that nearly all modern authors accept their relationship as lovers to be fact, almost without argument, despite the scarcity of information concerning it. Although I am not against it in any way, I'm not completely convinced that this is the relationship that they shared: being lovers.

Ancient writers assumed they did, and some wag wrote the great "Hephaistion's thighs" quip.

It really shouldn't matter as a moral (in the modern post Jesus sense) issue. It is of interest though, as he was certainly the most important figure in ATG's life as ATG himself saw it. What was Hephaistion's influence on ATG, what was the level of their "partnership" or as Jeanne Reames so neatly put it when she called him an éminence grise? People focus on the physicality, again in the modern sense I think.

What I find startling from modern folks to object to the idea is that because ATG got married, he couldn't possibly have had a male lover. Marriage was a political and/or economic union and to have children. The modern concept of "romance" and "marriage" as one in the same I guess.

I think the best line in Lane Fox's book is this one, concerning ATG and Hephaistion:

their relationship remained as intimate as it is now irrecoverable

athenas owl wrote: What was Hephaistion's influence on ATG, what was the level of their "partnership" or as Jeanne Reames so neatly put it when she called him an éminence grise?

I'm always puzzled why anyone would want to call Hephaistion an 'eminence grise'. The term comes from the reign of Louis XIII in France, and whether one thinks it refers to Cardinal Richelieu himself, or to his chaplain, surely the point behind the nickname was to imply not just a simple 'power behind the throne' situation, but actual manipulation.
To be sure, Hephaistion will have had influence - we know from the sources how much Alexander trusted him. But to call him an 'eminence grise' imples firstly that Hephaistion had an agenda of his own which he was keen to impose, and secondly that Alexander was weak enough not to spot this, or to stop it happening.
The first is not arguable, I'd say - whatever one thinks of Hephaistion's military abilities, it's plain throughout the sources that he was supportive of all Alexander's plans, even when controversial. The second is just unthinkable.
One can argue (though I wouldn't) that he was a useless pretty-boy, or a 'slightly sinister henchman' (Cartledge, I think) - but an eminence grise, never.

Fiona

Fiona wrote:To be sure, Hephaistion will have had influence - we know from the sources how much Alexander trusted him. But to call him an 'eminence grise' imples firstly that Hephaistion had an agenda of his own which he was keen to impose, and secondly that Alexander was weak enough not to spot this, or to stop it happening.

I think you are overreacting slightly. "Eminence grise" used in the sense of an advisor of some importance whose influence is not openly apparrent would serve. Influence is power of a sort. That Hephaestion had influence with Alexander is a given: you can't be that close without exercising it. As one of the seven somatophylakes it was part of his remit to advise the king.

If you have the king's favour - and he did - and are that close to power you will have some "agenda" (a loaded word); personal or otherwise. He ceratainly put others offside with some ease.

That Alexander did not "spot" this is not an indicator of weakness as such. He may well have agreed with much of it. Some of the most brilliant people in the world fail to spot certain things in those who hold their attention and affection. Occasionally it will bite - such as the bitter fight between Hephaestion and Craterus and the sharp rebuke it drew.

I chose the first.

I simply figure that such a prominent, lifelong romantic relationship, central to the king's life, would receive more mention.

Personally, i chose the third...as i belive the bound between these two historical figures was, is and will always be much stronger and deeper than anyone could ever imagine, understand or atleast try understanding it...

...i would say many on this topic...but i simply can't find the proper words...i wouldnt know with what to start and finish...but in a few words....i belive they've experienced the most pure, fair and the deepest love of all...i quess it was love in its purest and most perfect form...

I chose three. I think the fact that the relationship wasn't mentioned very much is because it was unusual in adult men of the same age and might be seen as detrimental to Alexander. The sources we have may be a small percentage of what there once was therefore it is important to look at Alexander's actions. He demonstrated at Troy to the army that he was his Patrocles. His grief - lying on the body for a day and a half- and massive expenditure on Hephaistion's death do not suggest just a friend.

AmitraNox wrote:Personally, i chose the third...as i belive the bound between these two historical figures was, is and will always be much stronger and deeper than anyone could ever imagine, understand or atleast try understanding it...

...i would say many on this topic...but i simply can't find the proper words...i wouldnt know with what to start and finish...but in a few words....i belive they've experienced the most pure, fair and the deepest love of all...i quess it was love in its purest and most perfect form...

I agree with you very much. It is not so much about what can be proved, but what we feel and know in our hearts to be true, from the glimpses we get.
The scene at Troy says so much, don't you think?
Fiona

di wrote:I chose three. I think the fact that the relationship wasn't mentioned very much is because it was unusual in adult men of the same age and might be seen as detrimental to Alexander. The sources we have may be a small percentage of what there once was therefore it is important to look at Alexander's actions. He demonstrated at Troy to the army that he was his Patrocles. His grief - lying on the body for a day and a half- and massive expenditure on Hephaistion's death do not suggest just a friend.

Hello Di, I like your point that it is Alexander's actions we have to notice, and as you say, his grief above all. By the time the sources we have were written down, attitudes had changed, and Hephaistion was already being air-brushed out of history.
Fiona

di wrote:I chose three. I think the fact that the relationship wasn't mentioned very much is because it was unusual in adult men of the same age and might be seen as detrimental to Alexander.

As opposed to, say, murdering a man who once saved his life in a drunken rage?

The sources we have may be a small percentage of what there once was ...

Sure, but even so I find it curious that sources such as Plutarch would qualify a love-match to a princess from a little-known tribe but not give any real mention to what would have been the king's practically life-long, central and defining relationship.

His grief - lying on the body for a day and a half- and massive expenditure on Hephaistion's death do not suggest just a friend.

By the time Hephaestion died, Alexander was more alone than ever. When we look at what is left of his histories, Hephaestion was probably the single individual whom the king could trust unequivocably and call Friend not in terms of status or political appointment, but in the true meaning of the word.

The removal of such an individual would be psychologically devastating to anyone in that situation. The magnitude of Alexander's gried strikes me as perfectly appropriate, given this context. His expenditures, grandiose as they were, fall within the parameters of the projects he was supposedly cooking up--super-fleets, pyramids, geographical alteration, etc.

I do find it interesting (and ironic) that the Achilles-Patroclus parallel is used by those who believe the two were romantically involved. Athenean aristocrats themselves projected a romance on those two heroes, despite any verse of Homer's (that I recall) that would have indicated this.

Closing note: I don't have any issue with the idea that Alexander and Hephaestion had a romantic relationship (whether in their youth or later), nor do I think his followers and marshalls would have been necessarily bent out of shape about it. I simply don't think that it's likely they shared this sort of relationship based on what's left to us. I could certainly be wrong!

A very late jump in on something here ...

Paralus wrote:I think you are overreacting slightly. "Eminence grise" used in the sense of an advisor of some importance whose influence is not openly apparrent would serve. Influence is power of a sort. That Hephaestion had influence with Alexander is a given: you can't be that close without exercising it. As one of the seven somatophylakes it was part of his remit to advise the king.

It isn't often that I disagree with you, Paralus, but on this occasion I do. An "eminence grise" is the one exercising power behind the throne, literally pulling the strings. While Hephaestion clearly did have influence with Alexander, and undoubtedly offered advice that Alexander might or might not have taken, I don't think there is any way we could use that term to describe him. Influential with Alexander he might have been, but he was definitely no Richelieu or Mazarin (he was a "dumb brute", anyway, after all! ).

ATB

I don't think murdering someone in a drunken rage is the same sort of act as having a long-term longlasting relationship with another man. The Macedonians were known to drink hard and it could be forgiven that someone might get carried away. Alexander also bitterly regretted his actions and this was noted in the sources.

I think he had to mention Roxanne as she was the mother of Alexander's child, the heir.

Plutarch is generally thought to have copied Ptolemy and Ptolemy was anxious to protect Alexander's name.

I agree Alexander had grandiose gesutres but ev n so lying ona corpse in a hot country for a day and a night and having to be dragged away is quite exeptional for a friend. Have you heard of others who have done the same for friends?

AmitraNox wrote:....i belive they've experienced the most pure, fair and the deepest love of all...i quess it was love in its purest and most perfect form...

And the evidence for this is ...?

ATB